VIJAYANAND KARUSAO FULBANDHE Vs. NATHUSAO BAKARAMSAO RAJABHOJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a tenant is challenging the concurrent orders' passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.

(2.) AN application came to be made before the Rent Controller or behalf of Nathusao and Rajkumar - father and son. It was claimed in that application that the house belonged originally to applicant No.1 Nathusao and the same was partitioned and was allotted to the share of applicant No.2 Rajkumar on 14-3-1986. It was further stated that the house was given on rent in 1973 to the present petitioner tenant Vijayanand on the monthly rent of Rs. 6/- and that the said tenancy was a monthly tenancy. It was pointed out that after the partition the applicant No.2 had become the owner and, therefore, the tenant was treated as his tenant. It was further pointed out that the non-applicant was not at all regular in payment of rent and he was in arrears of rent for the month of April, May and June, 1986. On that Count the permission under Clause 13 (3) (ii) of the C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Control Order") was claimed. Then it was suggested that the tenant had built a house in Vidyanagar area of Bhandara since last seven years and he had given that house on rent. Thus it was claimed that the tenant had secured an alternative accommodation and permission was claimed on that count under clause 13 (3) (v) of the Rent Control Order. It was pointed out further that the house in dispute had become very old and required the major repairs and alterations which could not be made without vacating the house. The permission on that count under Clause 13 (3) (vii) of the Rent Control Order was claimed. Lastly, it was claimed that the applicant was serving in State Bank of India and he needed the house for his own use and that he was not having any other house of his own in Bhandara town. On that count the permission was claimed under Clause 13 (3) (vi) of the Rent Control Order.

(3.) ON the basis of these pleadings and documents, the parties went on to lead the evidence. Both Nathusao as well as Rajkumar have examined themselves as the witnesses while on behalf of the tenant he himself has entered the witness-box. ON the basis of this evidence, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion firstly that the tenant had not become a habitual defaulter but on the other counts he has held that the tenant has secured alternate accommodation inasmuch as he had constructed a house in the Vidyanagar society. It is also held by the Rent Controller that the personal need of the applicant No.2 was proved and the house required the extensive repairs and as such he granted the permission on three counts, namely, clause 13 (3) (v), (vi) and (vii) of the Rent Control Order. An appeal came to be filed against this order by the tenant. However, the appellate Court has confirmed the orders passed by the Rent Controller necessitating the present petition.